ELAN-based multimodal discourse analysis of the interactive meanings and persuasive methods in criminal trials

2.3.1.1 Verbal techniques of persuasion

Persuasive language involves multiple linguistic and lexical modes, including lexical choice, grammar, style, and register. In the context of verbal persuasion, specific vocabulary choices are considered instrumental in enhancing persuasive impact:

1. Adjectives, adverbs, and nouns (Bamford 2018)

2. Emotive language (Perloff 2003) carries a high emotional semantic content.

3. Rhetorical questions and question tags: direct addresses to the audience can also become compelling (Bamford 2018) to elicit a certain reaction or response from audience.

4. Repetition as a stylistic device highlights particular concepts by assisting the message stick in minds.

5. Narratives (Bamford 2018) or “description” that suggests a stronger connection between the audience and the content.

6. Logical language: supports or proves an argument in a very cohesive manner. Hence, persuade.

7. Analogy (Johnstone 1989): invites the audience to agree with a particular point of view by comparing and abridging two challenging subjects.

8. Evidence: statistics and expert opinion can increase the speaker’s credibility by signifying some shared practical expertise with the addressee.

9. Hyperbole: stresses a point by exaggerating the condition’s significance.

Finally, specific register choices such as “ attacks ” and “ sarcasm ” can also serve persuasive functions in courtroom discourse. Given prosecutors’ institutional authority and their role in presenting evidence to establish the defendant’s guilt, such rhetorical strategies may be employed to reinforce their argumentative position.

2.3.1.2 Nonverbal (visual) techniques of persuasion

A thorough analysis of courtroom interactions must incorporate nonverbal cues, such as eye contact, posture, gestures, and facial expressions, which enrich or clarify spoken communication. Unlike speech, gestures often convey meanings distinct from verbal language (Goldin-Meadow 2003). Defined by Kendon (1996) as intentional “phases of bodily action,” gestures serve both communicative and performative functions during speech (Feyereisen and de Lannoy 1991). McNeill’s (1992, 2006) influential taxonomy categorizes gestures into four types: iconic, metaphoric, deictic, and beat. Iconic gestures depict concrete referents visually, while metaphoric gestures express abstract ideas through physical analogies.

Metaphoric gestures, unlike iconic ones, represent abstract concepts by mapping a physical source domain onto an abstract target domain, conveying ideas, memories, or other nonconcrete entities (McNeill 1992). Deictic gestures, by contrast, involve pointing to identify referents, symbolizing objects or actions. Kendon (2004) notes that deictic gestures often recur and may disrupt the discourse flow. Beat gestures, as described by Norris (2004), involve rhythmic movements, such as the motion of a finger or hand on stressed syllables, to visually segment and emphasize key parts of speech.

Hood (2011), in his study on body language within face-to-face educational settings, emphasizes the role of gestures in facilitating identification and the integration of various entities and semiotic systems within discourse. Suggesting that diverse interpretations of meaning and the varied resources of gestures contribute to the construction of identification meanings.

Eye contact and gaze constitute another salient visual modality for conveying meaning, serving as a nonverbal channel for transmitting information and negotiating social interactions. In examining turn-taking in conversation, Goodwin (1979) highlights the role of gaze in coordinating interactional tasks, particularly in establishing mutual attention at key moments. Facial expressions also function as essential visual cues, conveying emotions and signals, such as interest, disagreement, or the desire to speak without the need for verbal expression.

Posture, the positioning and arrangement of the body, significantly contributes to meaning-making across verbal and visual modalities by shaping participation and signaling engagement in social interactions (Matoesian and Gilbert 2018). Additionally, nodding enhances persuasion when aligned with compelling arguments, prompting individuals to reflect on their own responses and bolstering confidence in their judgments rather than directly reinforcing the persuasive message. In the description of head nodding, Briñol and Petty (2003) stated that, “If individuals’ thoughts during a persuasive message are predominantly favorable, then nodding should enhance persuasion because such movement would inspire confidence in and use of these favorable thoughts.” (1124–1125).

Finally, any discussion of multimodality in law would be incomplete without considering the role of materiality (Matoesian and Gilbert 2018). Material objects, such as exhibits, tape recordings, and photographic evidence, often underemphasized in linguistic and legal analyses, particularly in courtroom settings. Materiality serves a critical semiotic function in multimodal courtroom performances, temporarily shaping the environment and becoming intertextual artifacts of evidentiary significance through their use by legal professionals.

In sum, visual elements in trials go beyond complementing speech; they facilitate complex multimodal interactions that enhance meaning-making by fulfilling the three meta-functions ideational, textual, and interpersonal, thereby informing, structuring discourse, and engaging the audience’s imagination.

2.3.2.1 Aristotle’s three standards of persuasion

Aristotle (trans. 2007) identified three core persuasive appeals, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos (Figure 1), which remain foundational in contemporary persuasion research (Bamford 2018; Halmari and Virtanen 2005; Scotto di Carlo 2015). Ethos centers on the speaker’s character, emphasizing ethical credibility to inspire audience trust through both verbal and nonverbal cues, including physical demeanor and eye contact. Pathos appeals to the audience’s emotions, employing emotive language and inclusive rhetoric, often enhanced by visual elements that evoke affective responses such as excitement or tension. Logos appeals to logic and reason, with arguments supported by evidence, statistics, and authoritative sources to substantiate claims. Due to the fact that this type of argumentations utilizes a variety of schemes (i.e., casual, examples) (Kast 2007), appealing to Logos and reasoning is frequently implied or even accompanied by multimedia elements, which are frequently used as exhibits in a trial discourse in order to make or prove a claim. In conclusion, although both defense lawyers and prosecutors advocate for individuals and entities during court proceedings, their roles and professional authority vary, leading to the projection of distinct styles and approaches.

Figure 1:

Persuasion style based on Aristotle’s three standards.

4.1.1.1 Gestures’ synchrony

The timing of the gesture in respect to other modes (see Figure 3) is referred to as gesture synchrony. The prosecutor, Juan Martinez, employs deictic and beat gestures more than iconic and metaphoric ones. In a deictic gesture, the prosecutor uses an extended hand with “this, individual, the defendant…” to distance the referent, the defendant, from anyone around and to pick out the defendant’s vector in the deictic field (Matoesian 2010). The prosecutor reinforces his accusatory stance through coordinated gestures and verbal cues. For instance, pointing with open palms while uttering phrases like “this individual…” and “But now, instead of a gun, instead of a knife, she uses lies” underscores his condemnation, framing the defendant as both a “killer” and a “liar.” He also employs beat gestures, such as clenched fists directed at the jury while repeating, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’m really hurt,” to convey anger and dismiss the defendant’s claims as insincere. His sarcastic tone is further highlighted by a fleeting, sardonic smile as he remarks, “It’s not her fault that that happened, of course not,” signaling contempt. Apart from these rare instances of irony, his facial expressions remain predominantly serious, projecting solidarity and gravity. Though used sparingly, his gaze behavior is purposeful: he fixates on the defendant when referring to her as “this individual,” then quickly redirects his gaze toward the jury, clearly marking them as the intended recipients of his message.

Figure 3:

Screen shots of ELAN transcription with tiers (prosecutor’s closing argument).

4.1.1.2 Positioning (bodily movements)

Beyond the use of gestures, the prosecutor’s posture and movements underscore his attentiveness and engagement with the courtroom proceedings. For example, as he turned toward the jury and asked, “Can’t you all see based on these days and days?”, he aimed to draw their focus more directly to the evidence presented. His frequent head nods and physical adjustments throughout the argument conveyed a sense of dynamism and involvement, reinforcing the impression that his narrative resonated with both individual jurors and the collective audience.

4.1.1.3 Interpersonal meaning

In terms of Interpersonal meaning, the prosecutor, as the speaker, initiates legal action against the defendant, while the jurors function as listeners, evaluating evidence to reach a verdict. Regarding Mood, the prosecutor sustains communicative flow through predominantly declarative clauses in the closing statements, as seen in utterances like “and so according to her, she hits the backspace button” and “She planned to come and kill Mr. Alexander.” Although less common in closing arguments, interrogative clauses also appear. Through rhetorical questions such as “Can’t you all see based on these days and days?” and “What story are you gonna believe from this individual?”, Mr. Martinez does not expect actual responses but seeks to align the audience with his perspective, stimulate critical reflection, and maintain engagement.

Mr. Martinez’s argument uses imperative clauses like “let’s” to invite juror participation rather than command, enhancing engagement. He strategically employs imperatives such as “And remember” and “Don’t believe what’s written down, believe what I say” to emphasize key points and add emotional force. Regarding modality, although strong commitment modals like “will” are rare in his speech, he uses them selectively, for example, “You’ll be able to listen…,” to indicate future actions. He also uses low-commitment modals like “can” (e.g., “you can only make reference to…”) to create rapport with the audience, encouraging them to make their own decisions without pressure. Even for persuasive purposes, the modal “must” be occasionally used in some modes of communication to convey the highest level of obligation on the other person to carry out an action. However, the inclusion of the term “must” in a closing argument is infrequent, as it could potentially impede the persuasion process by introducing a sense of obligation, thereby creating a perceived distance between the prosecutor and the jury. Consequently, this modality resource is not observed in the prosecutor’s argument. Given that personal pronouns serve as an additional method for communicating persuasive messages and interpersonal nuances, specific choices of pronouns are evident in various perspectives within Mr. Martinez’s statements. Particularly in a closing argument speech, it is essential and evident that the speaker must inform the audience and strive to engage them to the fullest extent possible. Thus, the prosecutor’s closing dispute typically makes extensive use of the second personal pronoun “you” such as in “You don’t need the prosecutor or anybody to tell you”, “Don’t you know?”, “That’s exactly what they want you to believe”, “If you remember….”, “And you know, …”, and “Do you think that ….?”. Most significantly, “you” is constantly used in the prosecutor’s argument together with mental verbs like “remember,” “believe,” “think,” and “know” to suggest and convey connotations related to the audience capacity for judgment, understanding, and planning. Following the use of the second-person pronoun “you,” the inclusive first-person pronoun “we” emerges as a rhetorical strategy to foster shared understanding and collective reasoning, as seen in phrases like “we know that…,” “we know that she does something else,” and “we don’t know exactly….” In closing statements, attorneys frequently emphasize the importance of fact-based judgment and legal reasoning in their clients’ favor. As the speech concludes, the first-person singular pronoun “I” is often employed to assert authority and personal conviction. Expressions such as “Believe what I say,” “I am asking you to return a verdict of first-degree murder,” and “What I want to leave you with is that…” project credibility and reinforce the speaker’s perceived authority to guide the jury’s decision.

4.1.1.4 Materiality

In a compelling presentation, the prosecutor strategically integrates material objects as part of a multimodal persuasive approach, notably emphasizing images of the victim and the crime scene. These visuals, often depicting blood-related details, are paired with somber and ominous language to reconstruct the events leading to the murder. For instance, the statement “the more he bleeds, the quicker he dies” is reinforced by a photograph of a bloodstained floor and wall. By combining physical evidence with vivid imagery, the prosecutor aims to compellingly influence the jury’s acceptance of his argument.

4.2.1.1 Gestures’ synchrony

Mr. Kirk Nurmi, the defense attorney, syncopated (see Figure 4) a range of linguistic strategies and deictic, beat, iconic, and metaphoric gestures during his closing speech in an effort to refute the testimony offered by the prosecution party. Iconic and metaphorical gestures play a key role in the defense strategy. The attorney synchronizes gestures with motion verbs, as in “he’s leaning forward,” to visually depict the victim’s posture iconically. Metaphorically, the defense introduces a state self-defense guideline and directs jurors’ attention to the transcript, stating, “I am not going to read that to you, but I want to emphasize a particular portion…” Here, pointing to the text concretizes the abstract concept of “mind” through the physical transcript (McNeill 1992). Additionally, the defense employs deictic gestures by pointing toward the jury with an open palm, a gesture frequently used to “offer” or invite acceptance, signaling readiness to receive belief from the audience. For instance, to build trust with the jury in his forthcoming statements, he pairs this characteristic gesture with the phrase “Officer Belady… said.” Additionally, referencing an object is utilized as an additional form of deictic gesture. For example, Mr. Nurmi employs the phrase “he would have seen her coming” with added emphasis by raising his arm and index finger upward toward the screen. This gesture is intended to critique the audience’s belief that Jodi Arias committed a premeditated act. Referentially, Mr. Nurmi’s use of gestures alongside repeated references to the defendant as “Ms. Arias” and “Jodi Arias” conveys a tone of support and perhaps empathy toward her. His occasional hard or frowning facial expressions serve to signal denial, rejection, or even mockery, particularly when personally disputing the idea of a premeditated murder, as in the phrase “this plan she conjured up to kill Travis Alexander.” Nurmi’s gaze behavior – fixating on the jury during statements like “it’s not even about whether or not you like Jodi Arias” – aims to elicit compassion for the defendant. He strategically shifts his gaze between the jury and the defendant while posing rhetorical questions such as “Why would she do that?”, encouraging the jurors to actively weigh belief and doubt.

Figure 4:

Screen shots of ELAN transcription with tiers (the defense lawyer’s closing argument).

4.2.1.2 Positioning (bodily movements)

Alongside various gestures, Mr. Nurmi frequently employs physical movements to emphasize the dynamics of information exchange and justification. For example, his backward steps accompany the phrase “backs up because…” to create immediate alignment between verbal and visual cues, enhancing the audience’s understanding of the events. Additionally, Mr. Nurmi uses head nodding both to engage the audience’s interest and to signal denial, as exemplified in the rhetorical question, “it doesn’t make any sense, right?”

4.2.1.3 Interpersonal meaning

In terms of interpersonal meaning, the defense attorney is the speaker whose role is to defend the rights of the suspects or offenders and develop defenses that minimize the detrimental consequences of the case. Jurors, as the listeners, hear and weigh the defenses presented by the speaker in order to reach a verdict. As a key conveyor of interpersonal meaning, the Mood system often reflects the speaker’s attempt to influence the audience’s existing perceptions of the events and the defendant. In this regard, Mr. Nurmi predominantly employs interrogative clauses, followed by declarative clauses, with imperative clauses appearing least frequently. Questions such as “Why would she do that?”, “What better opportunity would somebody need?”, and “Does it make any sense?” are used to engage the listeners, particularly the jurors, and invite their reflection or reaction. Declarative clauses serve as the most reliable means to convey meaning in closing remarks, providing the audience with clear reasoning. Examples of declarative mood in Mr. Nurmi’s speech include phrases like “fear, love, sex, lies and dirty little secrets, these aspects…,” “the state making an argument…,” and “the state theorizes that she did….” Imperative clauses in his speech tend to invite collective action rather than issue direct commands, as seen in the inclusive phrases “let’s start there” and “let’s back up again.”

Mr. Nurmi’s speech strategically employs repeated imperative clauses like “Keep in mind” and “Remember” to focus the jury’s attention on key points. His modal usage avoids the strong-commitment future tense “will,” opting instead for the softer “would” to present polite requests. Low-commitment modals such as “can” are used to empower the jury’s confidence, while the authoritative “must” is replaced with less forceful language to encourage impartial decision-making. Additionally, the frequent use of the inclusive first-person plural pronoun “we” fosters shared engagement, whereas the direct address through the second-person pronoun “you” highlights the jury’s central role in deliberations.

While closing arguments conventionally culminate with the first-person singular “I” to assert authority and appeal, Mr. Nurmi integrates “I” throughout his speech, including the introduction and body, with expressions like “if Jodi Arias…, I can’t stand before you” and “I would say to you ladies and gentlemen,” thereby highlighting his personal engagement and rhetorical investment in persuading the jury.

4.2.1.4 Materiality

Regarding materiality, the defense attorney predominantly utilizes visual aids, including images illustrating the defendant and victim’s intimate relationship, a calendar, the murder weapon or its storage, and a schematic of the crime scene apartment, to shape the audience’s perceptions. These exhibits are introduced alongside rhetorical questions like “Does it make any sense? It makes no sense at all,” and “It doesn’t make any sense, right?” to engage the jury’s existing beliefs and reinforce the intended interpretive effect.

4.2.1.5 Linguistic choices

Effective persuasion hinges on the deliberate selection and deployment of linguistic strategies. In his speech, the defense attorney employs objective language and strategic lexical repetition to emphasize reasoned negotiation and a defensive posture toward the defendant. Mr. Nurmi consistently uses personalized noun phrases and pronouns when referring to the defendant, such as “if Jodi Arias” and “Ms. Arias,” alongside explanatory assertions like “Why would she do that? That was her point of being there.” His rhetorical strategy relies heavily on repetition to reinforce key ideas (e.g., “no more of delay, no more of delay” and “she’s asking you; she’s asking you”) and on rhetorical questions to prompt audience reflection and doubt about the prosecution’s narrative (e.g., “Does it make any sense?” and “It doesn’t make any sense, right?”). Additionally, narrativity and analogy are used to create vivid, accessible depictions of events (“he’s leaning forward,” “that’s a way pulling Ms. Arias,” “keep in mind now, if you were there…”). The defense further enhances its credibility by referencing expert testimony and evidentiary materials, such as “the forensic evidence, her statement…” and “the State theorizes that…,” thereby educating the jury and strengthening the epistemic basis of its argument.